Volume 7, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2211-7245
  • E-ISSN: 2211-7253
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



In bilingual streams in the Netherlands, school subjects are taught in an additional language so that pupils learn both subject content and the target language by using language meaningfully. Teachers of English in bilingual streams (TEBs) are often expected to collaborate with subject teacher colleagues (STs). In addition, they teach separate language lessons. This provides TEBs with specific challenges. This article reports on a focus group (FG) study exploring the extent to which the ideals of stakeholders in bilingual schools in the Netherlands reflect the literature on this topic, using a frame of reference developed for this purpose (Dale, Oostdam, & Verspoor, 2017). Five FGs were held with TEBs and STs from Dutch schools in the network for bilingual education and with members of the network’s quality assurance panels. Each FG consisted of between three and six participants with a similar role in bilingual education; audit panel chairpersons, audit panel secretaries and STs and TEBs from different schools. Participants were asked to discuss what an ideal English teacher would do in English lessons and in cooperation with subject colleagues. Data consists of five transcripts of the FG discussions. On the basis of inductive and deductive analyses (using MaxQDA), the ideals of stakeholders are positioned in the framework to explore to what extent different types of stakeholders have complementary or conflicting views. The findings suggest that stakeholders need to develop more shared understandings and a shared language to allow TEBs to realise their ambitions.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Arkoudis, S.
    (2006) Negotiating the rough ground between ESL and mainstream teachers. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 9(4), 415–433. 10.2167/beb337.0
    https://doi.org/10.2167/beb337.0 [Google Scholar]
  2. Borg, S.
    (2006) Teacher cognition and teacher education: Research and practice. London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Braun, V., & Clarke, V.
    (2008) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. doi:  10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
    https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa [Google Scholar]
  4. Chopey-Paquet, M.
    (2015) Investigating teacher partnerships for CLIL developing a model for subject-content and language teacher pedagogic collaboration towards integration (Unpublished PhD dissertation). University of Aberdeen. Retrieved from ​digitool​.abdn​.ac​.uk​/webclient​/StreamGate​?folder_id​=0&dvs​=1516033248693~427
  5. Coyle, D.
    (2011) Post-method pedagogies: Using a second or other language as a learning tool in CLIL settings. InY. Ruiz de Zarobe, J. M. Sierra, & F. Gallardo del Puerto (Eds.), Content and foreign language integrated learning: Contributions to multilingualism in European contexts (pp.49–74). Bern: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D.
    (2010) Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Creese, A.
    (2000) The role of the language specialist in disciplinary teaching: In search of a subject?Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 21(6), 451–470. 10.1080/01434630008666417
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01434630008666417 [Google Scholar]
  8. (2002) The discursive construction of power in teacher partnerships: Language and subject specialists in mainstream schools. TESOL Quarterly, 36(4), 597–616. 10.2307/3588242
    https://doi.org/10.2307/3588242 [Google Scholar]
  9. (2005) Is this content-based language teaching?Linguistics and Education, 16(2), 188–204. 10.1016/j.linged.2006.01.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2006.01.007 [Google Scholar]
  10. Creswell, J. W.
    (2013) Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Dale, L., Oostdam, R., & Verspoor, M.
    (2017) Searching for identity and focus: Towards an analytical framework for language teachers in bilingual education. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. doi:  10.1080/13670050.2017.1383351
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2017.1383351 [Google Scholar]
  12. Dalton-Puffer, C., & Smit, U.
    (2013) Content and language integrated learning: A research agenda. Language Teaching, 46(4), 545–559. 10.1017/S0261444813000256
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444813000256 [Google Scholar]
  13. European Platform
    European Platform (2012) Standard for bilingual education in English – havo/vwo. Haarlem: Europees Platform.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. European Platform
    European Platform (2013) Bilingual education in Dutch schools: A success story. Haarlem: European Platform.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Fasoglio, D., & Tuin, D.
    (2018) Hoe goed spreken leerlingen Engels als zij het voortgezet onderwijs verlaten? De ERK-streefniveaus onderzocht. [How well do secondary school pupils speak English on leaving school? An investigation of CEFR attainment targets.] Levende Talen Tijdschrift, 19(1).
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Freeman, D.
    (1996) Redefining the relationship between research and what teachers know. InK. M. Bailey & D. Nunan (Eds.), Voices from the language classroom: Qualitative research in second language education (pp.88–115). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. HBO-raad
    HBO-raad (2011–2012) Kennisbasis docent Engels bachelor. Den Haag: HBO-raad.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Krueger, R. A. & Casey, M. A.
    (2015) Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Messelink, A.
    (2018) Tweetalig onderwijs in het voortgezet onderwijs [Bilingual education in secondary schools]. Den Haag: Nuffic.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Nuffic
    Nuffic (2016) B2 or not B2 – Taalvaardigheden en ERK-niveaus in tweetalig onderwijs. Retrieved from https://www.nuffic.nl/publicaties/vind-een-publicatie/b2-or-not-b2-taalvaardigheden-en-erk-niveaus-in-tweetalig-onderwijs.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Nuffic
    Nuffic (2017) Tweetalig onderwijs. Retrieved from https://www.nuffic.nl/voortgezet-onderwijs/tweetalig-onderwijs
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Schleppegrell, M. J.
    (2018) The knowledge base for language teaching: What is the English to be taught as content?Language Teaching Research. doi:  10.1177/1362168818777519
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168818777519 [Google Scholar]
  23. Swain, M.
    (1988) Manipulating and complementing content teaching to maximize second language learning. TESL Canada Journal, 6, 68–83. 10.18806/tesl.v6i1.542
    https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v6i1.542 [Google Scholar]
  24. (1996) Integrating language and content in immersion classrooms: Research perspectives. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 52, 529–548. 10.3138/cmlr.52.4.529
    https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.52.4.529 [Google Scholar]
  25. Thomas, D. R.
    (2006) A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data. American Journal of Evaluation, 27, 237–246. 10.1177/1098214005283748
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214005283748 [Google Scholar]
  26. Trimbos, B.
    (2007) Concretisering van de kerndoelen MVT. Engels. Enschede: SLO.
    [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error